178
PARTISAN REVIEW
curriculum - have always been subject to reexamination and re–
thinking, it sounds as thought its authors simply are uttering a
cultural truism. But what it does not say is that what is advocated is
not a normal and organic revision of tradition by leading thinkers
and writers . It is rather an assault on the works of the past, indeed,
on the very idea of tradition, by academics who are promoting third–
world, black, literary feminist, and deconstructionist ideologies and
reinterpreting the past in terms of these ideologies .
If
they merely
wanted to resurrect a few neglected or forgotten works, there would
be no controversy over the canon and the curriculum.
A number of statistics are presented in the pamphlet to prove
that there actually have been very few changes in the curriculum at
most of our universities . All that is happening, the contributors say,
is that professors are looking at the works of the past in a new light,
that is , in conformity with new philosophical , literary, and critical
views. What they don't say is that these new views are turning our
sense of the past upside down. And it is precisely these views that are
factional, one-sided, and themselves in question . The notions , for
example, that all ideas are relative, and that no interpretations of
texts are privileged or more authoritative than others are not ac–
cepted by many of our best historians, philosophers , and literary
critics. Perhaps the heart of the issue is that those who support the
new revisionist curriculum are mostly academic theorists - not writ–
ers or practical literary critics .
W.P.
